Literature DB >> 35103252

2D or Synthetic 2D? A Reader Study of Visualization of Amorphous Calcifications.

Andrew Renaldo1, Matthew Miller1, Matthew Caley1, Ramapriya Ganti1, James Patrie2, Carrie Rochman1, Jonathan V Nguyen1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Some vendors have created algorithms that generate synthetic 2D (s2D) images from a digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) dataset to reduce the radiation from obtaining a separate 2D digital mammography (DM). This study evaluated the visibility of amorphous calcifications on 2D DM versus s2D on screening mammography.
METHODS: This IRB-approved, retrospective, reader study included screening mammograms from 36 women who received screening DBT exams where both 2D DM and s2D images were obtained: 28 screening mammograms that were eventually given BI-RADS category 4 or 5 for amorphous calcifications and 8 BI-RADS category 1 or 2 screening exams. Two rounds of interpretation were conducted with a six-week washout period. Cases were randomized to display either the 2D DM or s2D images, which were then alternated in the second round. Four fellowship-trained breast radiologists determined whether a study merited recall for calcifications. If so, they rated calcification visibility on a scale of 1 to 5. McNemar chi-square tests were conducted to assess differences in recall rates and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to examine shifts in visibility.
RESULTS: There was no difference in detection rates of amorphous calcifications between 2D DM and s2D, which were 75.9% and 75.0%, respectively (P = 1.000). Collectively, amorphous calcifications were more visible on s2D than 2D DM, with mean visibility scores of 3.4 versus 3.0, respectively (P = 0.005).
CONCLUSION: Synthetic 2D did not change identification of amorphous calcifications compared to 2D DM, and readers considered them more visible on average. © Society of Breast Imaging 2022. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast calcifications; digital breast tomosynthesis; digital mammography; screening mammography; synthetic mammography

Year:  2022        PMID: 35103252      PMCID: PMC8794011          DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbab094

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Breast Imaging        ISSN: 2631-6110


  19 in total

1.  A comparison of full-field digital mammograms versus 2D synthesized mammograms for detection of microcalcifications on screening.

Authors:  Rifat A Wahab; Su-Ju Lee; Bin Zhang; Lawrence Sobel; Mary C Mahoney
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2018-08-10       Impact factor: 3.528

2.  Performance of 2D Synthetic Mammography Versus Digital Mammography in the Detection of Microcalcifications at Screening.

Authors:  Katerina Dodelzon; Katherine Simon; Eda Dou; Allison D Levy; Aya Y Michaels; Gulce Askin; Janine T Katzen
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2020-04-07       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Randi Gullien; Ellen B Eben; Ulrika Ekseth; Unni Haakenaasen; Mina Izadi; Ingvild N Jebsen; Gunnar Jahr; Mona Krager; Loren T Niklason; Solveig Hofvind; David Gur
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Digital Mammography: Evaluation in a Population-based Screening Program.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Tone Hovda; Åsne S Holen; Christoph I Lee; Judy Albertsen; Hilde Bjørndal; Siri H B Brandal; Randi Gullien; Jon Lømo; Daehoon Park; Linda Romundstad; Pål Suhrke; Einar Vigeland; Per Skaane
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Ellen B Eben; Ingvild N Jebsen; Mona Krager; Unni Haakenaasen; Ulrika Ekseth; Mina Izadi; Solveig Hofvind; Randi Gullien
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-01-24       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Grouped Amorphous Calcifications at Mammography: Frequently Atypical but Rarely Associated with Aggressive Malignancy.

Authors:  Hayley C Oligane; Wendie A Berg; Andriy I Bandos; Sue S Chen; Sahand Sohrabi; Maria Anello; Margarita L Zuley
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Clinical Performance of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Combined with Tomosynthesis in a Large Screening Population.

Authors:  Mireille P Aujero; Sara C Gavenonis; Ron Benjamin; Zugui Zhang; Jacqueline S Holt
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Comparison of Positive Predictive Values of Categorization of Suspicious Calcifications Using the 4th and 5th Editions of BI-RADS.

Authors:  Ga Eun Park; Sung Hun Kim; Jung Min Lee; Bong Joo Kang; Byung Joo Chae
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: lessons learned from early clinical implementation.

Authors:  Robyn Gartner Roth; Andrew D A Maidment; Susan P Weinstein; Susan Orel Roth; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2014 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.333

10.  Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images.

Authors:  Margarita L Zuley; Ben Guo; Victor J Catullo; Denise M Chough; Amy E Kelly; Amy H Lu; Grace Y Rathfon; Marion Lee Spangler; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Andriy I Bandos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.